Entry Level SS(MOD) rules proposed

[buzzinhalfdozen]

Out of line costs this are certainly an issue, however not sure it's the cost of building the engines that's the biggest issue. You can easily find a decent piece on the cheap (outdated comp or S/S engine) that will get you in the game. The real issue is the game. The expenses have increased, entry fees, fuel and travel costs, this and that new rule, chassis certs, physicals, seat belts, lic. fees, lost work days (3 day points meets). There will always be some that will do it no matter the costs, just look around the pits at the new cars and combos, however most are current racers. Some merely shrugged their shoulders and went to the next race, while some chose to maybe skip this or that race and eventually found themselves parked for any number of reasons from lack of money, desire, or other interests. The next generation, isn't exactly beating down the door, except for a few 2nd or even 3rd generation racers, it's pretty lean as far as new blood. The reason is easily found, just go to your local race track and talk to the racers, explain the classes, rules, expenses, and payout and watch their faces. Most of the Next generation have little interest (other than the idea of just driving one) in class racing, it just doesn't make sense financially. Most all the "kids" I know plan their racing on the PAYOUT that is the first thing they concern themselves with, with location and entry fee being the 2nd and 3rd. It's obvious that you're looking for a way to increase participation but in my opinion you will not lure new or parked racers by bringing back 20 year old rules. My 2 cents

[Ed Wright]

I can only imaging policing the ceramic rear end bearings.

[randy wilson]

it was just a thought Ed. Nothing more. To those who want it to happen, it won't happen overnight. To those who don't want it to happen, don't run it. Real simple. It may never happen, but what the heck. It ain't 20 year old technology. It's just cutting back on the technology allowed. Some don't want it because they like what they're doing now. I say Fine. Some don't like it because they would have a hard time without today's technology. But I can't for the life of me figure out why the ones who don't want a class like this, really care if there is one.

[Geerhead55]

I guess I must be missing something. I've followed this "evolution" of the rules regarding this class for some time now,, counting the other threads that have dealt with this too, and heres what I don't get: I'm paraphrasing here, but you'll get my drift.
Rods: ANY length or type.Pistons: ANY type or pins.
Valvetrain: ANY cam or lifter-- under.904 & .700 max lift.
Intake: ANY cast aluminum available to the public.
Carb: ANY Holley "type" 750.
Exhaust; ANY header. Oil: ANY pan.
ANY factory rear end,,,, ANY factory automatic,,,, ANY this and ANY that. If that's the case,, then WHY are you joined at the hip to BRODIX heads every time this comes up? You've already established valve sizes,, why not put a maximum runner size,, 180, 200, 210, 220 whatever,, and let any, sorry, ANY manufacturers' heads play along? Is there a problem with AFR,, Edelbrock, World Products, Trick Flow, or others? Are you guys Brodix stockholders or part owners? It just seems when ever this topic comes up you've stuck with Brodix. I admit they have a fine product but why not open it up to the others?
Any cam could be Crane, Comp, Bullet, Erson, Elgin,, etc. etc.
Any intake could be Holley, Edelbrock, Weiand,, etc. etc.
Any carb "Holley type", is that a Demon,, Quick-Fuel, etc. etc.
I guess I just don't understand why this has to be a set in stone rule. If you guys are "in bed" with Brodix,, I get it,,, if not, then something stinks. I'm just looking for an explanation,, that's all. Thank you for your response.
Danny Durham

[FireSale]

Originally Posted by Geerhead55

I guess I must be missing something. I've followed this "evolution" of the rules regarding this class for some time now,, counting the other threads that have dealt with this too, and heres what I don't get: I'm paraphrasing here, but you'll get my drift.
Rods: ANY length or type.Pistons: ANY type or pins.
Valvetrain: ANY cam or lifter-- under.904 & .700 max lift.
Intake: ANY cast aluminum available to the public.
Carb: ANY Holley "type" 750.
Exhaust; ANY header. Oil: ANY pan.
ANY factory rear end,,,, ANY factory automatic,,,, ANY this and ANY that. If that's the case,, then WHY are you joined at the hip to BRODIX heads every time this comes up? You've already established valve sizes,, why not put a maximum runner size,, 180, 200, 210, 220 whatever,, and let any, sorry, ANY manufacturers' heads play along? Is there a problem with AFR,, Edelbrock, World Products, Trick Flow, or others? Are you guys Brodix stockholders or part owners? It just seems when ever this topic comes up you've stuck with Brodix. I admit they have a fine product but why not open it up to the others?
Any cam could be Crane, Comp, Bullet, Erson, Elgin,, etc. etc.
Any intake could be Holley, Edelbrock, Weiand,, etc. etc.
Any carb "Holley type", is that a Demon,, Quick-Fuel, etc. etc.
I guess I just don't understand why this has to be a set in stone rule. If you guys are "in bed" with Brodix,, I get it,,, if not, then something stinks. I'm just looking for an explanation,, that's all. Thank you for your response.
Danny Durham

Ditto. I read the first post and said "I'm out". I have 1500 bucks sunk in AFR heads on a 302 SBF that won't give that 3000 lb. weight based on 9 lb. per CID. And how is this an entry class when I can spend cash on stuff I can't run in GT like a 750 QF and light body parts?

Dale

[randy wilson]

I ain't in bed with Brodix. I'm for ANY suggestions of a limited cylinder head. Show me another company that builds heads for the big three with same flow numbers for each casting, and spec cast into the intake and exhaust port, and I'm all for it. I think it would be great to have all 5 casting companys present a legal head. Does that answer your question?

[buzzinhalfdozen]

To be clear I didn't say 20 year old technology, I said 20 year old rules they are not the same thing. A lot of the tech used today has actually been around a long time but was cost prohibited or rules prohibited. I'm in no way against your ideas, just stating my opinion as to the lack of new or parked competitors.

[Geerhead55]

Originally Posted by randy wilson

I ain't in bed with Brodix. I'm for ANY suggestions of a limited cylinder head. Show me another company that builds heads for the big three with same flow numbers for each casting, and spec cast into the intake and exhaust port, and I'm all for it. I think it would be great to have all 5 casting companys present a legal head. Does that answer your question?

Well,,, it answers one of them. Just to be fair,,, I did go on the Brodix website and looked up the spec heads you suggested,, heres what I found:
SPCH (Chevy): 2.08 int - 1.60 ex. 215cc runner - 23 degrees
SPFO (Ford): 2.08 int - 1.60 ex. 195cc runner - 20 degrees
SPMO (Mopar):2.08 int - 1.60 ex. 192cc runner - 18 degrees
Now, I may not be the brightest light in the harbor,, but other than the stated valve sizes,, these heads don't look alike to me,, when runner volumes vary from 192 to 215 cc,, a difference of 23, and valve angles have a difference of five degrees, from 18 to 23.
I did see that AFR offers a 195cc SBC head that's closer to the other two in runner size, and I know there are manufacturers that offer 18 degree heads for SBCs,, and that the Mopars seem to have the smallest offerings from the various head makers.
I don't know what your solution will be, but perhaps you'll have to agree on a runner volume, a valve angle and valve sizes and let the racers do their thing. Knowing the rules is their responsibility, and they should know that this could be policed at any given event,, so racer beware. Just a thought, since the "spec" heads appear to be so different. I would love to see this class take off,, don't get me wrong, good luck with it.
Danny Durham